Notice2023-11677
Availability of FSIS Guideline for Controlling Salmonella in Swine Slaughter and Pork Processing Establishments
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
June 1, 2023
Issuing agencies
Agriculture DepartmentFood Safety and Inspection Service
Abstract
FSIS is announcing that it has updated its guideline for pork producers on controlling Salmonella in swine from pre-harvest through slaughter. The guideline covers pre-harvest controls, including farm rearing, multi-hurdle interventions, transport, and lairage. It contains slaughter control recommendations. It also covers pork fabrication controls, including processing, packaging, and distribution controls for pork cuts and comminuted pork products. Additionally, FSIS is responding to comments on the guideline.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 105 (Thursday, June 1, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 105 (Thursday, June 1, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35827-35832]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-11677]
[[Page 35827]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Food Safety and Inspection Service
[Docket No. FSIS-2012-0026]
Availability of FSIS Guideline for Controlling Salmonella in
Swine Slaughter and Pork Processing Establishments
AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), Department of
Agriculture (USDA).
ACTION: Notice of availability and response to comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: FSIS is announcing that it has updated its guideline for pork
producers on controlling Salmonella in swine from pre-harvest through
slaughter. The guideline covers pre-harvest controls, including farm
rearing, multi-hurdle interventions, transport, and lairage. It
contains slaughter control recommendations. It also covers pork
fabrication controls, including processing, packaging, and distribution
controls for pork cuts and comminuted pork products. Additionally, FSIS
is responding to comments on the guideline.
ADDRESSES: A downloadable version of the guideline is available to view
and print at <a href="https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/regulatory-compliance/guidelines">https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/regulatory-compliance/guidelines</a>. No hard copies of the guideline have
been published.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel Edelstein, Assistant
Administrator, Office of Policy and Program Development; Telephone:
(202) 205-0495.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On January 6, 2014, FSIS announced in the Federal Register the
availability of the Compliance Guideline for Controlling Salmonella in
Market Hogs (79 FR 633).\1\ The guideline provided information on best
practices that may be applied at a hog slaughter facility to prevent,
eliminate, or reduce levels of Salmonella on hogs at all stages of
slaughter and dressing. The guideline was designed to help hog
slaughter establishments comply with the relevant regulatory
requirements. When FSIS announced the availability of the guidance, the
Agency also requested comments on the guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See: <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2014-01-06/pdf/2013-31488.pdf">https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2014-01-06/pdf/2013-31488.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After review and consideration of all comments received, FSIS has
made changes to and clarified certain aspects of the guideline. The
revisions are summarized below and are discussed in more detail in
FSIS' responses to comments. The revised guideline is available at the
FSIS guidance web page at <a href="https://www.fsis.usda.gov/policy/fsis-guidelines">https://www.fsis.usda.gov/policy/fsis-guidelines</a>. Although comments on this guideline will no longer be
accepted through <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>, FSIS will continue to update this
document, as necessary.
Summary of Major Changes to the Guideline
<bullet> FSIS changed the document title to FSIS Guideline to
Control Salmonella in Swine Slaughter and Pork Processing
Establishments;
<bullet> FSIS removed the word ``compliance'' from the document
title and throughout the guideline to clarify that it does not create
new regulatory requirements;
<bullet> FSIS updated the document to add relevant, current, peer-
reviewed scientific references related to swine slaughter, processing
of pork cuts, and comminuted pork products;
<bullet> FSIS updated the pre-harvest interventions to include
vaccine and bacteriophage interventions, housing and biosecurity, and
water and feed management;
<bullet> FSIS included a pork products outbreak history;
<bullet> FSIS added a policy background section;
<bullet> FSIS included FSIS data collection and FSIS pork sampling
information;
<bullet> FSIS added information regarding hot shipping best
practices;
<bullet> FSIS added a lymph node removal best practices section;
and
<bullet> FSIS removed language related to the Trichina guidance,
new technologies guidance, and validation guidance information, because
FSIS has separate guidance for these topics.
Comments and Responses
FSIS received six comments on the guidance, one from a pork
producer, one from an individual, and four from trade associations
representing the pork industry. The comment summary and FSIS' responses
follow.
General
Comment: Three trade associations stated that the guideline could
be misinterpreted as regulatory requirements. One of the trade
associations recommended that, in the final version of the guideline,
FSIS should clearly state that the best practices set forth are not
regulatory requirements. Additionally, two of the trade associations
suggested that FSIS state in the updated guideline that not all
establishments may be able to implement all best practices, and that
each establishment must develop and implement their own best practices
specific to their facility and operation.
Response: FSIS added language to note that the information in this
guideline is provided to help swine slaughter establishments meet
regulatory requirements. FSIS also stated in the guideline that the
best practices recommended do not have the force and effect of law and
are not meant to bind the public in any way. The best practice
recommendations are based on the best scientific and practical
considerations and are derived from scientific literature. This
document is intended only to clarify existing regulatory requirements.
Establishments should select best practice recommendations that work
for their unique in-plant conditions, equipment, and processes.
Establishments may choose to adopt different procedures than those
outlined in the guideline, but they would need to support that those
procedures are effective in meeting validation requirements and to
support decisions in the hazard analysis (9 CFR 417.4(a)(1) and 9 CFR
417.5(a)(1)).
Comment: A trade association stated that it would be difficult for
many small and very small establishments to implement many of the best
practices outlined in the guideline because they may lack technical
resources. The commenter suggested that FSIS ensure that the best
practices described in the guideline can be economically and
consistently implemented by small establishments.
Response: FSIS updated the guideline to clarify that it is focused
on small and very small establishments in support of the Small Business
Administration's initiative to provide small businesses with compliance
assistance under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act. The guideline includes science-based best practice recommendations
and scientific citations based on what small and very small
establishments may have the resources and technical ability to apply in
the facility. Although all establishments can benefit from the
information in the guideline, the focus is on the needs of small and
very small establishments to provide assistance that may be otherwise
unavailable.
Comment: A trade association stated that FSIS Enforcement,
Investigations and Analysis Officers (EIAOs) may not interpret or
implement the guidance in a consistent manner. The commenter
recommended that FSIS consider developing a training program to address
the interpretation and
[[Page 35828]]
enforcement consistency by EIAOs for guidance documents.
Response: FSIS enforces compliance with statutory and regulatory
requirements; FSIS does not enforce compliance with guidance documents
because they do not have the force and effect of law. However, FSIS
requires EIAOs to review and be familiar with FSIS guidance to provide
outreach to establishments.
Comment: Three trade associations recommended removing any
references to Toxoplasma gondii and Trichinella spiralis in the
guideline. One trade association further recommended removing any
references to Campylobacter from the guideline. The commenters argued
that these pathogens do not fit into a guidance document for
controlling Salmonella in market hogs.
Response: FSIS removed all references to Toxoplasma gondii and
Trichinella spiralis in the guideline because FSIS has a separate
guidance document that addresses these pathogens. The purpose of this
guidance document is to assist pork producers on controlling Salmonella
in swine; therefore, FSIS also removed all references to Campylobacter.
Comment: A trade association stated that FSIS should provide a
clearly defined and measurable objective that works towards the goal of
preventing, eliminating, or reducing levels of Salmonella on hogs. The
trade organization also argued that the table with non-pathogenic
indicator organism values, should not be included in the guideline. The
commenter suggested that the guidance on appropriate action levels for
non-pathogenic microorganisms should be removed because it did not
directly relate to the control of Salmonella or any other pathogen.
Response: FSIS has updated the guidance to include the recent
Salmonella illness outbreaks related to pork products consumption
(Table 1), and public health relevance is focused on how pork may be a
vehicle for salmonellosis. In addition, the table with indicator
organism criteria limits in market hogs has been removed from the
guideline. All pork slaughter establishments are required to comply
with the requirements of 9 CFR 310.18 for evaluation of statistical
process control to minimize microbial contamination of carcasses,
reduce microbial pathogens that may be present and injurious to health,
control the proliferation of any remaining microorganisms, and prevent
recontamination.
Comment: A trade association stated that if the guideline contains
best practices related to temperatures, those temperatures should be
directly related to the control of Salmonella.
Response: FSIS updated the temperature recommendations to include
the latest peer-reviewed research. Several temperature recommendations
were removed because some small and very small establishments may not
be able to implement resource-intensive equipment and procedures to
maintain these temperatures.
Comment: A pork producer asked FSIS to add recommendations to the
guideline on how to best control Salmonella in establishments that do
not utilize polishing equipment and that skin out hogs manually or with
a hide puller.
Response: FSIS provided best practice recommendations for commonly
used steps in the slaughter process. Some establishments processes may
vary. The guideline includes a recommendation that knives be sanitized
frequently for establishments that use skinning to remove the hair and
hide. Additionally, the recommendations for sanitation and using a
multi-hurdle approach may be applicable to all establishments,
including those that do not utilize polishing equipment.
Comment: A pork producer asked FSIS to add recommendations to the
guideline on how to best control Salmonella in establishments that
split the body with the head still attached.
Response: FSIS best practice recommendations for head washing and
head dropping are important for all establishments, including those
that split the carcass with the head still attached. FSIS updated the
guideline to recommend that establishments flush the oral cavity with
room-temperature water removing ingesta or other contaminants before
head dropping and FSIS head inspection; maintain and sanitize head
dropping equipment, as necessary, between carcasses; sanitize knives
frequently and properly; and maintain and sanitize knives and equipment
whenever the oral-pharyngeal cavity is sectioned or there is exposure
to stomach contents.
References and Formatting
Comment: A pork producer noted that the previous version of the
guideline contained broken hyperlinks or hyperlinks that do not go to
the correct location.
Response: FSIS has updated all hyperlinks and references.
Comment: The individual commenter asked if the information for
``McMullen, 2000'' referenced on pages 16 and 24 of the previous
version of the guideline should be added to the References section.
Response: FSIS has updated the References section to include the
correct citation information. This reference is also cited in the
section titled ``Pre-chill Final Rinse, Hot Rinse, and Steam
Pasteurization.''
Comment: Two trade associations suggested that FSIS update the
scientific references to the most recent research from the United
States. The commenters argued that most of the references are outdated
and many of the studies referenced in the guideline were conducted in
other countries and are not applicable in the United States. Another
trade association requested that the guideline contain a reference or
citation after each recommended best practice.
Response: FSIS has updated all the references, removed outdated
references, and included nearly 100 new peer-reviewed references to
assist small and very small establishments in accessing the latest
research and scientific support. The references are listed at the end
of the document and are also cited in each pertinent section throughout
the guideline for ease-of-use for small and very small establishments.
Salmonella in Market Hogs
Comment: A trade association asked if there is a link between the
FSIS market hog Salmonella baseline and public health risk.
Response: FSIS has updated the guideline to include the latest FSIS
sampling data from the Raw Pork Products Exploratory Sampling
Program.\2\ These updates provide a recent, thorough analysis of
Salmonella prevalence in market hogs and the public health risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/science-data/sampling-
program/raw-pork-products-exploratory-sampling-
program#:~:text=FSIS%20announced%20the%20launch%20of,organisms%
20in%20various%20pork%20products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: A trade association asked what type of pork caused the
outbreaks discussed in the guideline and if the pork was produced under
FSIS inspection.
Response: FSIS has updated the guidance to include the recent
illness outbreaks related to pork products consumption. Table 1 lists
each pork product implicated in each of the 36 illness outbreaks from
2014-2019. Retail product associated with outbreaks is typically
inspected by FSIS or by State inspection programs. However, there have
also been outbreaks from whole roaster hogs at church events, etc.,
that were from non-FSIS inspected sources.
[[Page 35829]]
Farm Rearing
Comment: Two trade associations recommended adding additional best
practices to the farm rearing section of the guideline on the use of
vaccination in herds and on the use of non-pelleted feed.
Response: FSIS updated the section on farm rearing to include
housing and biosecurity measures. In addition, FSIS included sections
on preharvest controls for water and feed management and pre-harvest
vaccine and bacteriophage interventions.
Comment: A trade association representing the pork industry argued
that the best practice recommendations for farm rearing and transport
should not be included in the guideline. The commenter argued that in
most cases, establishments have little, if any, influence on such
practices and that FSIS does not have jurisdiction to regulate on-farm
practices.
Response: FSIS recommends establishments work closely and establish
communication with their livestock suppliers to identify and address
on-farm controls as a means of targeting multiple areas of swine
production through pre-harvest control of Salmonella coming into
slaughter establishments. FSIS updated the section on live animal
transport and lairage with best practice recommendations based on
current scientific research because microbiological contamination in
the slaughterhouse environment can start with the delivery of
Salmonella-positive hogs. Control of Salmonella at the herd level is
critical to prevent the spread on-farm, through hygienic processes,
feed and water management, live animal transport, and lairage before
hogs reach the slaughter line. Stress during transport and many on-farm
factors play a significant role in spreading Salmonella.
Lairage
Comment: Four trade associations commented that the best practice
to disinfect lairage pens and alley ways between herds (using
chlorinated alkaline detergent followed by disinfection with a
quaternary ammonium solution) is overly burdensome and may not be
practical for every establishment. One of these trade associations
stated that there is literature to support that there are other
cleaners and sanitizers that would be equally effective. Another trade
group commented during ongoing production operations, constant
application of cleaning solutions is not practical, cost effective, or
often even possible due to the logistics of creating space for incoming
loads and moving hogs on to harvest in a continuous line. The commenter
suggested that implementing such a recommendation in many
establishments could lead to crowding or unnecessary agitation of the
hogs. The commenter stated that it is more practical for establishments
to clean and sanitize the pens and alleyways when the building and
structures are empty or close to empty.
Response: FSIS updated the guideline to recognize that there are
numerous cleaners and sanitizers with varying application parameters
and frequencies that establishments may choose to use and to recognize
that those decisions should be based on the unique characteristics of
an establishment's food safety plan and available support. FSIS also
included in the guidance that it is often practical to clean and
sanitize pens and alleyways when they are empty.
Comment: A trade association noted that the guideline recommends
ensuring that hogs are washed clean (pen shower) and dry enough to
preclude dripping at the time of stunning. The commenter and two other
trade associations noted that this practice may not be practical for
many establishments, because showering pigs in colder weather may raise
animal welfare issues in addition to the possibility of ice formation.
Response: In the guidance, FSIS recommends that the hogs should be
dry enough to prevent dripping at the time of stunning; if they are
dripping, the moisture may contribute to cross-contamination during
stunning, sticking, or skinning, for those establishments that skin the
carcasses instead of using a dehairing machine. FSIS updated the
guidance to state that pen showers are also important measures to
ensure that hogs are washed clean, when appropriate. FSIS recommends
establishments consider weather conditions to determine whether it is
appropriate to use pen showers. Consistent with the commenters, in the
guidance, FSIS recognizes cold conditions and ice formation may create
an animal welfare concern.
Comment: Three trade associations asserted that the best practice
recommendation for minimizing the time hogs are held in lairage had two
key problems. The first is that the guideline does not specify a
recommended ``minimum'' time that pigs should be held in lairage.
Secondly, if pigs are not held in lairage at all, that would compromise
pork quality, may result in high incidence of pale soft exudative
conditions, and increases Salmonella contamination.
Response: In the guidance, FSIS does not give a minimum time for
holding hogs in lairage. Rather, FSIS recommends that establishments
use a variety of preventive measures at lairage to prevent and reduce
the spread of Salmonella among the herd, including minimizing the time
that hogs are held in lairage and preventing overcrowding during time
in lairage. Also in the guidance, FSIS encourages further study and
solutions by industry in controlling and reducing the spread of
Salmonella in hog slaughter facilities with particular attention to
controls at lairage.
Comment: A trade association recommended the best practice to use
slatted or elevated floors in lairage pens to reduce waste and water
accumulation. The commenter stated that, while this may be useful to
those considering new construction or retrofitting, it would be cost-
prohibitive for most existing facilities. The commenter further stated
that many existing operations achieve acceptable results using sloped
floors with proper drainage and effective cleaning and sanitizing.
Response: The guidance recommends that establishments maintain
lairage pens in good condition to prevent injury to animals, and that
slatted, sloped, or elevated floors are important to reduce waste and
water accumulation that can contribute to the spread of Salmonella.
FSIS best practice recommendations do not require establishments to
retrofit an existing facility.
Comment: A trade association representing the pork industry noted
the guideline contains a ``highlight box'' indicating that lairage is
the most cost-effective stage to prevent cross-contamination. The
commenter stated that while lairage is currently a vulnerability for
pigs to become infected, the commenter was not aware of specific
scientific evidence to be able to document that it is the most cost-
effective stage to prevent cross-contamination. The commenter stated
that an establishment's hazard analysis should be used to make the
determination of locations and cost-effectiveness.
Response: FSIS does state in the text of the guideline that a
scientific study has shown that controls at lairage are cost-effective
measures an establishment can take to prevent cross-contamination that
leads to rapid infection (Van der Gaag et al., 2004). The statement has
been removed from the highlight box. As stated in the guideline,
establishments should select best
[[Page 35830]]
practice recommendations that work for the unique in-plant conditions,
equipment, and processes.
Slaughter/Bleeding
Comment: A trade association recommended that FSIS rename the
``Slaughter/Bleeding'' step and section heading to ``Bleeding.''
Response: FSIS has renamed the section heading to Bleeding.
Comment: Two trade associations argued that although stick knives
have tested positive for Salmonella in several studies, there is very
little data to suggest that they are a ``significant source'' for
Salmonella contamination.
Response: FSIS recommends that knives be sanitized between each
carcass. Contamination of knives, boots, the number of gut ruptures,
mechanical problems, or other factors, which are common process points
for handling and cross-contamination, were factors significantly
associated with the prevalence of Salmonella on the carcasses in
research studies (Botteldoorn et al., 2003; Letellier et al., 2009).
Scalding
Comment: Two of the industry groups noted that the statement
references 5 [deg]F (41 [deg]C) should read 105 [deg]F (41 [deg]C).
Response: FSIS has corrected typographical errors and temperatures,
and the section has been updated with additional peer-reviewed
references.
Comment: A trade association stated that many establishments use
scalding temperatures and times other than those referenced in the
guideline, and this should be reflected in the guidance document.
Response: The Scalding section has been updated with additional
peer-reviewed references, including other temperature/time combinations
that have been shown to be effective in various studies.
Comment: A trade association recommended that FSIS update the
guideline to state that establishments should consider the type of hog,
season, and equipment when determining the appropriate scalding
temperature and duration.
Response: FSIS updated the guidance to state that FSIS recommends
considering the type of hog, season, and the equipment being used to
determine and support the appropriate scalding temperature and
duration.
De-Hairing
Comment: Two trade associations stated that the suggested best
practice of cleaning and disinfecting de-hairing equipment, preferably
using a clean-in place (CIP) system, which may be applied on an ongoing
basis throughout production, is not practical for this type of
equipment. The industry groups argued that not all de-hairing equipment
can be retrofitted with CIP systems, and many small establishments use
self-contained scalders which simultaneously de-hair the carcass.
Response: FSIS updated the guideline to reflect that some
establishments may find using a CIP system throughout production
beneficial since it can be applied on an ongoing basis; however, FSIS
recognizes in the guideline that such a system requires significant
investment and appropriate equipment. As stated in the guideline,
establishments should select best practice recommendations that work
for the unique in-plant conditions, equipment, and processes.
Comment: Two trade associations stated that the suggested best
practice for removing all organic material and debris from de-hairing
equipment at the end of the day is overly burdensome. The commenters
stated that there are many effective ways to clean and disinfect de-
hairing equipment and that specifying water pressures, types of
chemicals, and contact times does not allow for flexibility.
Response: FSIS removed several specific temperature and
antimicrobial intervention recommendations because some small and very
small establishments may not be able to implement the use of resource-
intensive equipment and procedures. As stated in the guideline, FSIS
recommends that intervention and control strategies be formulated based
on a combination of measures that are both practical and economically
feasible.
Comment: Two trade associations argued that the suggested best
practice to ``use water between 140[deg] to 144 [deg]F (60 [deg]C to 62
[deg]C) in the de-hairing machine if the water is not chemically
treated (7 ICMSF, 1998)'' may not be practical depending on the type of
equipment used.
Response: FSIS included several best practice recommendations in
the updated guideline, depending on the equipment type used. FSIS also
recommended that establishments ensure that equipment can be cleaned
and disinfected to comply with 9 CFR 416.3. As stated in the guideline,
establishments should select best practice recommendations that work
for the unique in-plant conditions, equipment, and processes. FSIS
recommends that intervention and control strategies be formulated based
on a combination of measures that are both practical and economically
feasible.
Comment: A pork producer asked FSIS to add recommendations to the
guideline on how to best control Salmonella in very small
establishments that do not utilize de-hairing tanks.
Response: FSIS provided best practice recommendations for commonly
used steps in the slaughter process. FSIS did not update the guideline
to include a separate section for establishments that do not use de-
hairing tanks, but does address skinning hogs in the guidance. FSIS
added a recommendation that knives be sanitized frequently for
establishments that use skinning to remove the hair and hide.
Additionally, the recommendations for sanitation and using a multi-
hurdle approach may be applicable to all establishments, including
those that do not utilize de-hairing tanks.
Steam/Hot Water Vacuuming
Comment: Two trade associations stated that the Steam/Hot Water
Vacuuming section was out of place in the document and blends
information on steam vacuuming and carcass washing into a single
section. The industry groups argued that it is unlikely that these
interventions would be applied between the gambrelling and singeing
processes.
Response: FSIS has reorganized the guidance to be reflective of the
steps of the process and added new sections (e.g., multi-hurdle
intervention approach, pre-harvest sections, lymph node removal,
shipping practices) to provide thorough best practice recommendations.
In addition, FSIS has separated steam and hot water vacuum
interventions from carcass rinses and washes to reflect the typical
order of interventions in-plant.
Singeing Best Practices
Comment: A pork producer asked what best practices FSIS would
recommend for small establishments to control Salmonella that do not
utilize singeing cabinets.
Response: FSIS provided best practice recommendations for commonly
used steps in the slaughter process. Some establishments processes may
vary, and some establishments may use skinning rather than scalding,
dehairing, and singeing. FSIS recommends that intervention and control
strategies be formulated based on a combination of measures that are
both practical and economically feasible.
[[Page 35831]]
Pre-Evisceration Carcass Rinse or Spray
Comment: Two trade associations noted the suggested best practice
to use water at a temperature greater than 160 [deg]F (71.1 [deg]C) and
stated that there is support for using lower temperatures.
Response: FSIS removed specific temperatures from this section of
the guideline.
Comment: A trade association representing the pork industry
commented on the best practice that recommends that the pressure for
carcass sprays not exceed 100 PSI to prevent driving contamination into
the tissue. The commenter questioned what tissue the contamination
would potentially be driven into.
Response: FSIS has removed all reference to 100 PSI pressure spray
from the guidance document. The guidance includes FSIS recommended best
practices when using pre-evisceration carcass rinses and sprays. FSIS
does recommend that monitoring pressure is important to prevent driving
microbiological contamination into the carcass tissue.
Comment: A trade association asked how the suggested best practice
to minimize overspray of water or solution from the cabinet is
associated with food safety.
Response: FSIS has updated the guidance to reflect that
establishments should minimize splash onto other carcasses to prevent
potential cross-contamination. Airborne bacterial contamination has
been shown to spread; therefore, FSIS recommends establishments take
precautions to limit overspray and aerosolization through techniques
and equipment.
Comment: Two trade associations asked if the best practice
recommendation of using a post-evisceration rinse or spray to further
reduce carcass contamination is another practice prior to a final
carcass wash. The industry groups further asked if application of a
final carcass wash is a regulatory requirement.
Response: While a final carcass wash is not a regulatory
requirement for swine slaughter establishments, FSIS recommends carcass
decontamination treatments before chilling and that intervention and
control strategies be formulated based on a combination of measures
that are both practical and economically feasible. Studies have shown
that processing procedures, such as decontamination treatments after
evisceration and carcass splitting, generally result in decreased
prevalence of Salmonella as the carcasses move toward the cooler.
Comment: A trade association recommended FSIS clarify
recommendations concerning applying organic acids.
Response: FSIS has updated the guideline to state that automated
spray cabinets or handheld sprayers may be used, bearing in mind that
the effectiveness of the interventions vary based on the critical
operational parameters used, and appropriate scientific support is
required for establishments using interventions.
Bung Isolation
Comment: Two trade associations requested FSIS clarify the guidance
concerning bung isolation.
Response: FSIS updated the guideline to state that FSIS recommends
establishments bag and tie the bung before evisceration, ensuring staff
pay specific attention to minimizing cross-contamination of the carcass
and viscera. FSIS recommends that intervention and control strategies
be formulated based on a combination of measures that are both
practical and economically feasible.
Pre-Chill Final Rinse/Hot Rinse/Steam Pasteurization
Comment: Two trade associations recommended that FSIS provide
guidance for the upper limits on water pressure for washing carcasses.
Response: FSIS removed specific requirements for pressure in the
guidance because the efficacy of these interventions can vary depending
on the specific critical operational parameters used, including water
temperature, water pressure, length of application, and chemical
concentration. FSIS best practice recommendations state that
establishments should implement decontamination and antimicrobial
interventions using appropriate critical operational parameters.
Comment: A trade association stated that there are many other
antimicrobial rinses that can be applied, and that limiting the
recommendation to lactic or acetic acid may imply that it is the only
antimicrobial that can be used.
Response: FSIS updated the guideline to include a variety of
antimicrobial interventions supported by the literature.
Comment: A trade association representing the pork industry
suggested that FSIS mention antimicrobials in this section. The
commenter noted that FSIS could provide references that include
specific examples as a useful tool to assist the small and very small
establishments.
Response: FSIS updated the guideline to provide best practice
recommendations, which include a variety of antimicrobial interventions
supported by the literature. FSIS provided information and citations to
potential antimicrobial interventions, including chlorine, trisodium
phosphate, lactic acid, and acetic acid.
Additional Public Notification
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy
development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this Federal
Register publication online through the FSIS web page located at:
<a href="http://www.fsis.usda.gov/federal-register">http://www.fsis.usda.gov/federal-register</a>. FSIS also will make copies
of this publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update,
which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies,
procedures, regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS public
meetings, and other types of information that could affect or would be
of interest to our constituents and stakeholders. The Constituent
Update is available on the FSIS web page. Through the web page, FSIS
can provide information to a much broader, more diverse audience. In
addition, FSIS offers an email subscription service which provides
automatic and customized access to selected food safety news and
information. This service is available at: <a href="https://www.fsis.usda.gov/subscribe">https://www.fsis.usda.gov/subscribe</a>. Options range from recalls to export information,
regulations, directives, and notices. Customers can add or delete
subscriptions themselves and have the option to password protect their
accounts.
USDA Non-Discrimination Statement
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and USDA civil rights
regulations and policies, USDA, its Mission Areas, agencies, staff
offices, employees, and institutions participating in or administering
USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color,
national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender
expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status,
family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance
program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil
rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA
(not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing
deadlines vary by program or incident.
Program information may be made available in languages other than
English. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of
communication to obtain program information (e.g., Braille, large
print,
[[Page 35832]]
audiotape, American Sign Language) should contact the responsible
Mission Area, agency, or staff office; the USDA TARGET Center at (202)
720-2600 (voice and TTY); or the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-
8339.
To file a program discrimination complaint, a complainant should
complete a Form AD-3027, USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form,
which can be obtained online at <a href="https://www.usda.gov/forms/electronic-forms">https://www.usda.gov/forms/electronic-forms</a>, from any USDA office, by calling (866) 632-9992, or by writing a
letter addressed to USDA. The letter must contain the complainant's
name, address, telephone number, and a written description of the
alleged discriminatory action in sufficient detail to inform the
Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights (ASCR) about the nature and date
of an alleged civil rights violation. The completed AD-3027 form or
letter must be submitted to USDA by:
(1) Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20250-9410;
(2) Fax: (833) 256-1665 or (202) 690-7442; or
(3) Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0575776a627764682b6c6b71646e6045707661642b626a73"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="acdcdec3cbdecdc182c5c2d8cdc7c9ecd9dfc8cd82cbc3da">[email protected]</span></a>.
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
Done at Washington, DC.
Paul Kiecker,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2023-11677 Filed 5-31-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on June 1, 2023.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.